Dear sir/Madam

I’m writing to you on the instructions of my client Spidify Industries Private Limited who has
received a legal notice sent by you dated 28 th October 2021. In your notice you have
mentioned that my client has violated the trademark of your client Spotify.

We deny this contention and bring to your attention the following facts and principal in law –

1. Our client has registered the trademark SPIDIFY INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
under application No. 5111907 in class 42 for services “Scientific and technological
services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research
services; design and development of computer hardware and software”.

2. Spidify has registered the trademark under section 5 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999. The
name has gone through all the procedures that are required to register the trademark and
has also gone to all the scrutiny processes that are required by the Trademark Act 1999.

3. Our client has submitted all the documents that were required by the registrar for the
registration of the trademark. The name Spidify was approved according to the
Trademark Act, 1999. So, there was no issues that were found by the registrar. Hence, the
use of name Spidify is absolutely legal.

4. Spotify is a Swedish company that streams music, video, and podcasts through licensing
agreements with record labels and media companies; it also offers its own exclusive
content. Whereas Spidify Industries Private Limited is a professional website, software
development company that endeavours on highly proficient, timely delivered, and cost-
effective software, website development services. Our client helps the start-ups to
promote their products by various digital means to advance in this fast-growing market
rapidly. They also provide our customers with customized software to automate their
business, for scalability, and for them to be more productive. Our services include website
development, app development, customized software, digital marketing, and business
consultancy. As a result, Spedify’s services are completely different from Spotify.
5. According to section 29 (2) of Trademark Act, 1999, A registered trade mark is
infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of
permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of –

(a) its identity with the registered trade mark and the similarity of the goods or services
covered by such registered trade mark; or
(b) its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods
or services covered by such registered trade mark; or
(c) its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of the goods or services
covered by such registered trade mark, is likely to cause confusion on the part of the
public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark.

6. In the present situation our client company Spedify provide completely different
services from Spotify and there is no similarity in operation of both the companies. So,
Spedify cannot be liable here. The Apex Court has also applied following tests and
factors to check validity of trademark:

a) Respective uses of the goods/Services;

b) Respective users of the goods/services;
c) Physical nature of goods/services;
d) Trade channels through which goods/services reach the market;
e) Whether goods were likely to be found in supermarket;
f) Extent to which the goods/services were competitive; and
g) Whether goods/services traded/provided by the same business.

7. In present situation Spedify Industries Private Limited has different services from
Spotify. They have different trade channels in the market. Both of them are not in the
same business. In the case of Indchemie Health Specialties Pvt. Ltd. v. Intas
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., stated that various factors which are needed to be considered
whilst deciding whether the goods are of the same description or similar include the
nature and composition of goods, their respective uses and functions, and the trade
channels through which they are bought and sold etc. No single one of these factors is
conclusive on the point. So, the case was dismissed by the court.

8. Our client has invested significant capital in the present company and helps the start-ups
to promote their products by various digital means to advance in this fast-growing
market rapidly while the opposition company streams music, video, and podcasts
through licensing agreements with record labels and media companies; it also offers its
own exclusive content. There operations and services are completely different from the
opposition company. So, there should be no confusion among the public as the targeted
consumers of both the organisations are different.
9. Our client has just started the company and is new to the business and is a small
company. While Spotify is large organisation with millions of users around the world.
We ensure that Spedify will not spread confusion among the public as the targeted
consumers are different and our client will not use the name of the opposition company
to increase its profits.

10. Our client will take full responsibility if the Trademark of the opposition company is
misused for the betterment of the client’s company and will only use their own
trademark to provide and carry out the services for the public.